Vladimir Lenin’s

“Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder

No Compromises?

In the quotation from the Frankfurt
pamphlet, we have seen how emphatically the “Lefts” have advanced this
slogan. It is sad to see people who no doubt consider themselves Marxists,
and want to be Marxists, forget the fundamental truths of Marxism. This is
what Engels—who, like Marx, was one of those rarest of authors whose
every sentence in every one of their fundamental works contains a
remarkably profound content—wrote in 1874, against the manifesto of
the thirty-three Blanquist Communards:

“‘We are Communists’ [the Blanquist Communards
wrote in their manifesto], ‘because we want to attain our goal
without stopping at intermediate stations, without any compromises, which
only postpone the day of victory and prolong the period of
slavery.’

“The German Communists are Communists because, through all
the intermediate stations and all compromises created, not by them but by
the course of historical development, they clearly perceive and constantly
pursue the final aim—the abolition of classes and the creation of a
society in which there will no longer be private ownership of land or of
the means of production. The thirty-three Blanquists are Communists just
because they imagine that, merely because they want to skip the
intermediate stations and compromises, the matter is settled, and if
‘it begins’ in the next few days—which they take for
granted—and they take over power, ‘communism will be
introduced’ the day after tomorrow. If that is not immediately
possible, they are not Communists.

“What childish innocence it is to present one’s own
impatience as a theoretically convincing argument!” (Frederick Engels,
“Programme of the
Blanquist Communards”, [30]
from the German Social-Democratic newspaper Volksstaat, 1874, No.
73, given in the Russian translation of Articles,
18711875, Petrograd, 1919, pp. 5253).

In the same article, Engels expresses his profound esteem for Vaillant,
and speaks of the “unquestionable merit” of the latter (who, like Guesde,
was one of the most prominent leaders of international socialism until
their betrayal of socialism in August 1914). But Engels does not fail to
give a detailed analysis of an obvious error. Of course, to very young and
inexperienced revolutionaries, as well as to petty-bourgeois
revolutionaries of even very respectable age and great experience, it seems
extremely “dangerous”, incomprehensible and wrong to “permit compromises”. Many sophists (being unusually or excessively “experienced” politicians)
reason exactly in the same way as the British leaders of opportunism
mentioned by Comrade Lansbury: “If the Bolsheviks are permitted a certain
compromise, why should we not be permitted any kind of compromise?”
However, proletarians schooled in numerous strikes (to take only this
manifestation of the class struggle) usually assimilate in admirable
fashion the very profound truth (philosophical, historical, political and
psychological) expounded by Engels. Every proletarian has been through
strikes and has experienced “compromises” with the hated oppressors and
exploiters, when the workers have had to return to work either without
having achieved anything or else agreeing to only a partial satisfaction of
their demands. Every proletarian—as a result of the conditions of the
mass struggle and the acute intensification of class antagonisms he lives
among—sees the difference between a compromise enforced by objective
conditions (such as lack of strike funds, no outside support, starvation
and exhaustion)—a compromise which in no way minimises the
revolutionary devotion and readiness to carry on the struggle on the part
of the workers who have agreed to such a compromise—and, on the other
hand, a compromise by traitors who try to ascribe to objective causes their
self-interest (strike-breakers also enter into “compromises”!), their
cowardice, desire to toady to the capitalists, and readiness to yield to
intimidation, sometimes to persuasion, sometimes to sops, and sometimes to
flattery from the capitalists. (The history of the British labour movement
provides a very large number of instances of such treacherous compromises
by British trade union leaders, but, in one form or another, almost all
workers in all countries have witnessed the same sort of
thing.)

Naturally, there are individual cases of exceptional difficulty and
complexity, when the greatest efforts are necessary for a proper assessment
of the actual character of this or that “compromise”, just as there are
cases of homicide when it is by no means easy to establish whether the
homicide was fully justified and even necessary (as, for example,
legitimate self-defence), or due to unpardonable negligence, or even to a
cunningly executed perfidious plan. Of course, in politics, where it is
sometimes a matter of extremely complex relations—national and
international—between classes and parties, very many cases will arise
that will be much more difficult than the question of a legitimate
“compromise” in a strike or a treacherous “compromise”
by a strike-breaker,
treacherous leader, etc. It would be absurd to formulate a recipe or
general rule (“No compromises!”) to suit all cases. One must use
one’s own brains and be able to find one’s bearings in each
particular instance. It is, in fact, one of the functions of a party
organisation and of party leaders worthy of the name, to acquire, through
the prolonged, persistent, variegated and comprehensive efforts of all
thinking representatives of a given class, *6 the knowledge, experience and—in addition to knowledge and experience—the political flair necessary for the speedy
and correct solution of complex political problems. [30]

Naïve and quite inexperienced people imagine that the permissibility of
compromise in general is sufficient to obliterate any distinction
between opportunism, against which we are waging, and must wage, an
unremitting struggle, and revolutionary Marxism, or communism. But if such
people do not yet know that in nature and in society all
distinctions are fluid and up to a certain point conventional, nothing can
help them but lengthy training, education, enlightenment, and political and
everyday experience. In the practical questions that arise in the politics
of any particular or specific historical moment, it is important to single
out those which display the principal type of intolerable and treacherous
compromises, such as embody an opportunism that is fatal to the
revolutionary class, and to exert all efforts to explain them and combat
them. During the 191418 imperialist war between two groups of equally
predatory countries, social-chauvinism was the principal and fundamental
type of opportunism, i.e., support of “defence of country”, which in
such a war was really equivalent to defence of the predatory
interests of one’s “own” bourgeoisie. After the war, defence of the
robber League of Nations, [31]
defence of direct or indirect alliances with the bourgeoisie of one’s
own country against the revolutionary proletariat and the “Soviet”
movement, and defence of bourgeois democracy and bourgeois
parliamentarianism against “Soviet power” became the principal
manifestations of those intolerable and treacherous compromises, whose sum
total constituted an opportunism fatal to the revolutionary proletariat and
its cause.

“. . . All compromise with other parties . . . any policy of
manoeuvring and compromise must be emphatically rejected,”

the German Lefts write in the Frankfurt pamphlet.

It is surprising that, with such views, these Lefts do not emphatically
condemn Bolshevism! After all, the German Lefts cannot but know that the
entire history of Bolshevism, both before and after the October Revolution,
is full of instances of changes of tack, conciliatory tactics and
compromises with other parties, including bourgeois parties!

To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a
war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than
the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in
advance any change of tack, or any utilisation of a conflict of interests
(even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or
compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable,
vacillating or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the
extreme? Is it not like making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and
hitherto inaccessible mountain and refusing in advance ever to move in
zigzags, ever to retrace one’s steps, or ever to abandon a course
once selected, and to try others? And yet people so immature and
inexperienced (if youth were the explanation, it would not be so bad; young
people are preordained to talk such nonsense for a certain period) have met
with support—whether direct or indirect, open or covert, whole or
partial, it does not matter—from some members of the Communist Party
of Holland.

After the first socialist revolution of the proletariat, and the
overthrow of the bourgeoisie in some country, the proletariat of that
country remains for a long time weaker than the bourgeoisie,
simply because of the latter’s extensive international links, and
also because of the spontaneous and continuous restoration and regeneration
of capitalism and the bourgeoisie by the small commodity producers of the
country which has overthrown the bourgeoisie. The more powerful enemy can
be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and by the most thorough,
careful, attentive, skilful and obligatory use of any, even the
smallest, rift between the enemies, any conflict of interests among the
bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types
of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage
of any, even the smallest, opportunity of winning a mass ally, even though
this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional.
Those who do not understand this reveal a failure to understand even the
smallest grain of Marxism, of modern scientific socialism in
general. Those who have not proved in practice, over a fairly
considerable period of time and in fairly varied political situations,
their ability to apply this truth in practice have not yet learned to help
the revolutionary class in its struggle to emancipate all toiling humanity
from the exploiters. And this applies equally to the period before
and after the proletariat has won political
power.

Our theory is not a dogma, but a guide to action, said Marx and
Engels. [32] The greatest
blunder, the greatest crime, committed by such “out-and-out” Marxists as
Karl Kautsky, Otto Bauer, etc., is that they have not understood this and
have been unable to apply it at crucial moments of the proletarian
revolution. “Political activity is not like the pavement of Nevsky
Prospekt” (the well-kept, broad and level pavement of the perfectly
straight principal thoroughfare of St. Petersburg), N. G. Chernyshevsky,
the great Russian socialist of the pre-Marxist period, used to say. Since
Chernyshevsky’s time, disregard or forgetfulness of this truth has
cost Russian revolutionaries countless sacrifices. We must strive at all
costs to prevent the Left Communists and West-European and
American revolutionaries that are devoted to the working class from paying
as dearly as the backward Russians did to learn this
truth.

Prior to the downfall of tsarism, the Russian revolutionary
Social-Democrats made repeated use of the services of the bourgeois
liberals, i.e., they concluded numerous practical compromises with the
latter. In 190102, even prior to the appearance of Bolshevism, the old
editorial board of Iskra (consisting of Plekhanov, Axelrod,
Zasulich, Martov, Potresov and myself) concluded (not for long, it is true)
a formal political alliance with Struve, the political leader of bourgeois
liberalism, while at the same time being able to wage an unremitting and
most merciless ideological and political struggle against bourgeois
liberalism and against the slightest manifestation of its influence in the
working-class movement. The Bolsheviks have always adhered to this policy.
Since 1905 they have systematically advocated an alliance between the
working class and the peasantry, against the liberal bourgeoisie and
tsarism, never, however, refusing to support the bourgeoisie against
tsarism (for instance, during second rounds of elections, or during second
ballots) and never ceasing their relentless ideological and political
struggle against the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the bourgeois-revolutionary
peasant party, exposing them as petty-bourgeois democrats who have falsely
described themselves as socialists. During the Duma elections of 1907, the
Bolsheviks entered briefly into a formal political bloc with the
Socialist-Revolutionaries. Between 1903 and 1912, there were periods of
several years in which we were formally united with the Mensheviks in a
single Social-Democratic Party, but we never stopped our
ideological and political struggle against them as opportunists and
vehicles of bourgeois influence on the proletariat. During the war, we
concluded certain compromises with the Kautskyites, with the Left
Mensheviks (Martov), and with a section of the Socialist-Revolutionaries
(Chernov and Natanson); we were together with them at Zimmerwald and
Kienthal, [33] and issued joint
manifestos. However, we never ceased and never relaxed our ideological and
political struggle against the Kautskyites, Martov and Chernov (when
Natanson died in 1919, a “Revolutionary-Communist” Narodnik, [34] he was very close to and almost
in agreement with us). At the very moment of the October Revolution, we
entered into an informal but very important (and very successful) political
bloc with the petty-bourgeois peasantry by adopting the
Socialist-Revolutionary agrarian programme in its
entirety, without a single alteration—i.e., we effected an
undeniable compromise in order to prove to the peasants that we wanted, not
to “steam-roller” them but to reach agreement with them. At the same time
we proposed (and soon after effected) a formal political bloc, including
participation in the government, with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries,
who dissolved this bloc after the conclusion of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
and then, in July 1918, went to the length of armed rebellion, and
subsequently of an armed struggle, against us.

It is therefore understandable why the attacks made by the German Lefts
against the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Germany for
entertaining the idea of a bloc with the Independents (the Independent
Social-Democratic Party of Germany—the Kautskyites) are absolutely
inane, in our opinion, and clear proof that the “Lefts” are in the
wrong. In Russia, too, there were Right Mensheviks (participants
in the Kerensky government), who corresponded to the German Scheidemanns,
and Left Mensheviks (Martov), corresponding to the German Kautskyites and
standing in opposition to the Right Mensheviks. A gradual shift of the
worker masses from the Mensheviks over to the Bolsheviks was to be clearly
seen in 1917. At the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets, held in June
1917, we had only 13 per cent of the votes; the Socialist-Revolutionaries
and the Mensheviks had a majority. At the Second Congress of Soviets
(October 25, 1917, old style) we had 51 per cent of the votes. Why is it
that in Germany the same and absolutely identical shift
of the workers from Right to Left did not immediately strengthen the
Communists, but first strengthened the midway Independent Party, although
the latter never had independent political ideas or an independent policy,
but merely wavered between the Scheidemanns and the Communists?

One of the evident reasons was the erroneous tactics of the
German Communists, who must fearlessly and honestly admit this error and
learn to rectify it. The error consisted in their denial of the need to
take part in the reactionary bourgeois parliaments and in the reactionary
trade unions; the error consisted in numerous manifestations of that
“Left-wing” infantile disorder which has now come to the surface and will
consequently be cured the more thoroughly, the more rapidly and with
greater advantage to the organism.

The German Independent Social-Democratic Party is obviously not a
homogeneous body. Alongside the old opportunist leaders (Kautsky,
Hilferding and apparently, to a considerable extent, Crispien, Ledebour and
others)—these have revealed their inability to understand the
significance of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and
their inability to lead the proletariat’s revolutionary
struggle—there has emerged in this party a Left and proletarian wing,
which is growing most rapidly. Hundreds of thousands of members of this
party (which has, I think, a membership of some three-quarters of a
million) are proletarians who are abandoning Scheidemann and are rapidly
going over to communism. This proletarian wing has already
proposed—at the Leipzig Congress of the Independents (1919)—immediate
and unconditional affiliation to the Third International. To fear
a “compromise” with this wing of the party is positively ridiculous. On the
contrary, it is the duty of Communists to seek and find a
suitable form of compromise with them, a compromise which, on the one hand,
will facilitate and accelerate the necessary complete fusion with this wing
and, on the other, will in no way hamper the Communists in their
ideological and political struggle against the opportunist Right wing of
the Independents. It will probably be no easy matter to devise a suitable
form of compromise—but only a charlatan could promise the German
workers and the German Communists an “easy” road to victory.

Capitalism would not be capitalism if the proletariat pur sang
were not surrounded by a large number of exceedingly motley types
intermediate between the proletarian and the semi-proletarian (who earns
his livelihood in part by the sale of his labour-power), between the
semi-proletarian and the small peasant (and petty artisan, handicraft
worker and small master in general), between the small peasant and the
middle peasant, and so on, and if the proletariat itself were not divided
into more developed and less developed strata, if it were not divided
according to territorial origin, trade, sometimes according to religion,
and so on. From all this follows the necessity, the absolute necessity, for
the Communist Party, the vanguard of the proletariat, its class-conscious
section, to resort to changes of tack, to conciliation and compromises with
the various groups of proletarians, with the various parties of the workers
and small masters. It is entirely a matter of knowing how to apply
these tactics in order to raise—not lower—the
general level of proletarian class-consciousness, revolutionary
spirit, and ability to fight and win. Incidentally, it should be noted that
the Bolsheviks’ victory over the Mensheviks called for the
application of tactics of changes of tack, conciliation and compromises,
not only before but also after the October Revolution of 1917, but
the changes of tack and compromises were, of course, such as assisted,
boosted and consolidated the Bolsheviks at the expense of the Mensheviks.
The petty-bourgeois democrats (including the Mensheviks) inevitably
vacillate between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between bourgeois
democracy and the Soviet system, between reformism and revolutionism,
between love for the workers and fear of the proletarian dictatorship, etc.
The Communists’ proper tactics should consist in utilising
these vacillations, not ignoring them; utilising them calls for concessions
to elements that are turning towards the proletariat—whenever and in
the measure that they turn towards the proletariat—in addition to
fighting those who turn towards the bourgeoisie. As a result of the
application of the correct tactics, Menshevism began to disintegrate, and
has been disintegrating more and more in our country; the stubbornly
opportunist leaders are being isolated, and the best of the workers and the
best elements among the petty-bourgeois democrats are being brought into
our camp. This is a lengthy process, and the hasty “decision”—“No
compromises, no manoeuvres”—can only prejudice the strengthening of the
revolutionary proletariat’s influence and the enlargement of its
forces.

Lastly, one of the undoubted errors of the German “Lefts” lies in their
downright refusal to recognise the Treaty of Versailles. The more
“weightily” and “pompously”, the more “emphatically” and peremptorily this
viewpoint is formulated (by K. Horner, for instance), the less sense it
seems to make. It is not enough, under the present conditions of the
international proletarian revolution, to repudiate the preposterous
absurdities of “National Bolshevism” (Laufenberg and others), which has
gone to the length of advocating a bloc with the German bourgeoisie for a
war against the Entente. One must realise that it is utterly false tactics
to refuse to admit that a Soviet Germany (if a German Soviet republic were
soon to arise) would have to recognise the Treaty of Versailles for a time,
and to submit to it. From this it does not follow that the
Independents—at a time when the Scheidemanns were in the government,
when the Soviet government in Hungary had not yet been overthrown, and when
it was still possible that a Soviet revolution in Vienna would support
Soviet Hungary—were right, under the circumstances, in
putting forward the demand that the Treaty of Versailles should be signed.
At that time the Independents tacked and manoeuvred very clumsily, for they
more or less accepted responsibility for the Scheidemann traitors, and more
or less backslid from advocacy of a ruthless (and most calmly conducted)
class war against the Scheidemanns, to advocacy of a “classless” or
“above-class” standpoint.

In the present situation, however, the German Communists should
obviously not deprive themselves of freedom of action by giving a positive
and categorical promise to repudiate the Treaty of Versailles in the event
of communism’s victory. That would be absurd. They should say: the
Scheidemanns and the Kautskyites have committed a number of acts of
treachery hindering (and in part quite ruining) the chances of an alliance
with Soviet Russia and Soviet Hungary. We Communists will do all we can to
facilitate and pave the way for such an alliance.
However, we are in no way obligated to repudiate the Treaty of Versailles,
come what may, or to do so at once. The possibility of its successful
repudiation will depend, not only on the German, but also on the
international successes of the Soviet movement. The Scheidemanns and the
Kautskyites have hampered this movement; we are helping it. That is the
gist of the matter; therein lies the fundamental difference. And if our
class enemies, the exploiters and their Scheidemann and Kautskyite lackeys,
have missed many an opportunity of strengthening both the German and the
international Soviet movement, of strengthening both the German and the
international Soviet revolution, the blame lies with them. The Soviet
revolution in Germany will strengthen the international Soviet movement,
which is the strongest bulwark (and the only reliable, invincible and
world-wide bulwark) against the Treaty of Versailles and against
international imperialism in general. To give absolute, categorical and
immediate precedence to liberation from the Treaty of Versailles and to
give it precedence over the question of liberating other
countries oppressed by imperialism, from the yoke of imperialism, is
philistine nationalism (worthy of the Kautskys, the Hilferdings, the Otto
Bauers and Co.), not revolutionary internationalism. The overthrow of the
bourgeoisie in any of the large European countries, including Germany,
would be such a gain for the international revolution that, for its sake,
one can, and if necessary should, tolerate a more prolonged existence
of the Treaty of Versailles. If Russia, standing alone, could endure
the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk for several months, to the advantage of the
revolution, there is nothing impossible in a Soviet Germany, allied with
Soviet Russia, enduring the existence of the Treaty of Versailles for a
longer period, to the advantage of the revolution.

The imperialists of France, Britain, etc., are trying to provoke and
ensnare the German Communists: “Say that you will not sign the Treaty of
Versailles!” they urge. Like babes, the Left Communists fall into the trap
laid for them, instead of skilfully manoeuvring against the crafty and,
at present, stronger enemy, and instead of telling him, “We shall
sign the Treaty of Versailles now.” It is folly, not revolutionism, to
deprive ourselves in advance of any freedom of action, openly to inform an
enemy who is at present better armed than we are whether we shall fight
him, and when. To accept battle at a time when it is obviously advantageous
to the enemy, but not to us, is criminal; political leaders of the
revolutionary class are absolutely useless if they are incapable of
“changing tack, or offering conciliation and compromise” in order to take
evasive action in a patently disadvantageous battle.

Footnotes

[31] The
League of Nations was an international body which existed between
the First and the Second World Wars. It was founded in 1919 at the Paris
Peace Conference of the victor powers of the First World War. The Covenant
of the League of Nations formed part of the Treaty of Versailles of 1919,
and was signed by 44 nations. The Covenant was designed to produce the
impression that this organisation’s aim was to combat aggression,
reduce armaments, and consolidate peace and security. In practice, however
its leaders shielded the aggressors, fostered the arms race and
preparations for the Second World War.

Between 1920 and 1934, the League’s activities were
hostile towards the Soviet Union. It was one of the centres for the
organising of armed intervention against the Soviet state in 192021.

On September 15, 1934, on French initiative, 34 member
states invited the Soviet Union to join the League of Nations, which the
U.S.S.R. did, with the aim of strengthening peace. However, the Soviet
Union’s attempts to form a peace front met with resistance from
reactionary circles in the Western powers. With the outbreak of the Second
World War the League’s activities came to an end, the formal
dissolution taking place in April 1946, according to a decision by the
specially summoned
Assembly.

[32] Lenin is
referring to a passage from Frederick Engels’s letter to F. A. Sorge
of November 29, 1886, in which, criticising German Social-Democrat
political exiles living in America, Engels wrote that for them the theory
was “a credo, not a guide to action” (see Karl Marx and Frederick Engels,
Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1965, p.
395).

[33] The
reference is to the international socialist conferences in Zimmerwald and
Kienthal (Switzerland).

The Zimmerwald Conference, the first international
socialist conference, was held on September 58, 1915. The Kienthal
Conference, the second international socialist conference, was held in
the small town of Kienthal on April 2430, 1916.

The Zimmerwald and Kienthal conferences contributed to the
ideological unity, on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, of the Left-wing
elements in West-European Social-Democracy, who later played an active part
in the formation of Communist parties in their countries and the
establishment of the Third, Communist
International.

[34]
“Revolutionary Communists”—a Narodnik
group which broke away
from the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries after the latter’s mutiny in
July 1918. In September 1918, they formed the “Party of Revolutionary
Communism”, which favoured co-operation with the R.C.P.(B.), and pledged
support for Soviet power. Their programme which remained on the platform of
Narodnik utopianism was muddled and eclectic. While recognising that Soviet
rule created preconditions for the establishment of a socialist system, the
“revolutionary communists” denied the necessity of the proletarian
dictatorship during the transitional period from capitalism to socialism.
Throughout the lifetime of the “Party of Revolutionary Communism”, certain
of its groups broke away from it, some of them joining the R.C.P.(B.) (A.
Kolegayev, A. Bitsenko, M. Dobrokhotov and others), and others, the Left
Socialist-Revolutionaries. Two representatives of the “Party of
Revolutionary Communism” were allowed to attend the Second Congress of the
Comintern, in a deliberative capacity, but with no votes. In September
1920, following the Congress decision that there must be a single Communist
Party in each country, the “Party of Revolutionary Communism” decided to
join the R.C.P.(B.). In October of the same year, the R.C.P.(B.) Central
Committee permitted Party organisations to enrol members of the former
“Party of Revolutionary Communism” in the
R.C.P.(B.).

[*6] Within
every class, even in the conditions prevailing in the most enlightened
countries, even within the most advanced class, and even when the
circumstances of the moment have aroused all its spiritual forces to an
exceptional degree, there always are—and inevitably will be
as long as classes exist, as long as a classless society has not fully
consolidated itself, and has not developed on its own foundations—
representatives of the class who do not think, and are incapable of
thinking, for themselves. Capitalism would not be the Oppressor of the
masses that it actually is, if things were otherwise.